The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1887-05-26

manufacturer, and the chemical COM
position Of the contents in detail, and
the department. may have it analysed
and condemned if found to be faulty,
and the seller subiected<to penalties.
Now why all this unless to protect the
public from imposition, and to keep
the traffic in the hands Of respectable
persons, and to make the means to
that end self.sdstaining by a license
taxi" =
That is clear recognition of the
police power of the statute, and the
decision expressly declares the statute
valid. But it is true that the turning
point in State VS.. Norris was not the
police power alone.
Our statute has been recognized
arguemdo by the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the Tennessee case as
valid, and the same in our W court
i'm State VS.. Norris.
That is all that is necessary to be
said to sustain our statute. But Istep
aside to- notice an amusing fallacy=in
The opinion delivered by Mr.. Justice
Bradley in the Tennessee case. After
discussing the right Of a citizen OF one
state to trade in another State without
being taxed, he says that he is entitled
to exemption from tax not only because
he is a citizen of a State, but also be-
cause he is.a citizen of the United
States. His language is as follows:
alt seems to be forgotten in argu-
ment that the people of the country
are citizens of the United States as
well as of the Individual States; and
that they have some rightes under the
constitution and laws of the former
independent of the latter, and free
from any interference or restraint from
them"
Now that means that the defendant
in that case had the right to say to
Tennessee that, "leaving out Of sight
the fact that I am a citizen of Ohio,
and therefore you cannot tax me nor
my trade, I am a citizen of the United
States, and therefore you cannot tax
me nor my trade"
Now let us test that doctrine. I am
a citizen of North Carolina, and the
State proposes to tax me and my trade.
[ object and I put my objection on the
| ground that | am a citizen Of the I'm
tied States. That is my only plea.
Now will the fact that am a citizen
of the United States prevent North
ICarolina from taxing me? If it will,
then there is force in what the learned
Justice claims for United States citi.
zenship. If it will not, then I fear
the school boys will laugh at his falla-
cious logic.
The constitution Of the United Sta
ties says that the citizens of each state,
and it does not say the citizens of the
United States, shall have rights in the
United States, shall have rights in the
other states. This seems to have been
"forgdtten" by the learned justice.
Homer mods. And when he wakes up
he will remember that it is state-citi-
zenship that gives rights in other
States.
The doctrine enunciated by our
OupACIHC SOuIC III 'CCdtc vs.. NOII1S Is
as follows:
"The clause in the constitution of
the United States. that the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the
immunities and privileges of citizens
Of the other states does not give to
citizens Of other states coming into
this state the immunities and privile.
ges which they may have had at home;
nor does it give them greater immun-
tiles and privileges here because they
are strangers. than our own citizens
have, but only the same, putting all on
equal footing" - 81
We think this better doctrine than
Justice Bradley's obiter in the .Tennes- !.
see case And we are somewhat re-
lievedI from the appearance of impu-
dence|b by the fact that in the Tennessee
case, Chief Justice Waite, Justice
Field and Justice Gray in their dissen-
ting opinions agree with us; and we
have the express language of the con-
stitution, the citizens of each state shall
have the same rights, &c.
i would not be understood as dis
cussing the rights of citizens of the
States and of the United States in any
particular except the matter in hand.
+ e. G. READ.